
• -• 


VOTING BY PROXY IN CHARITABLE SOCIETIES. 


SPEECH 


The Hon. Mr. NOODLE. 




















VOTING BY PROXY IN CHARITABLE SOCIETIES. 


SPEECH 


THE HON. MR. NOODLE 

/' 

AGAINST 


THE ASSEMBLY BILL 


EMPOWERING MEMBERS OF BENEVOLENT AND 
OTHER SOCIETIES TO VOTE BJ PROXY. 

^ G ^~\ ‘ 

WITH AN INTRODUCTION, N 


CONTAINING THE BILL, THE NEW YORK REMONSTRANCE, OPINIONS 
OF THE PRESS, AND NOTICE OF MR. NOODLE. 



NEW YORK: 

ROE LOCKWOOD & SON, 411 BROADWAY. 
1859. 









































































• K 












< ■ . ,, 
























1 



















































. 























































INTRODUCTION. 


-* o *--— 

The following bill was introduced in the Assembly at its present session, 
on motion by the Hon. Frederick A. Conkling, of Hew York, Chairman of 
the Committee of Ways and Means, read twice, and referred to the Com¬ 
mittee on Charitable and Religious Societies, by whom it was amended 
and unanimously reported, when it was committed to the Committee of the 
Whole. 

AN ACT to empower the members and stockholders of benevolent, charitable, scientific 
and missionary corporations and societies to vote by proxy. 

The People of the State of New Yorlc , represented in Senate and Assembly , do enact as 
follows: — 

Section 1. The members for life, and stockholders of any benevolent, charitable, 
scientific or missionary corporation or association organized under and by virtue of the 
provisions of an act entitled “An act for the incorporation of benevolent, charitable, 
scientific and missionary societies,” passed April 12, 1848, and the acts supplementary 
thereto and amendatory thereof, or under and by virtue of any special act or charter 
of the people of this State, shall have the right to vote by proxy at the meetings of such 
associations, and at the annual or other elections of the officers thereof. 

§ 2. The right to vote by proxy, given by the preceding section, shall not belong to 
mere honorary or corresponding members of the corporation therein named, nor to any 
who have become members of such corporation, otherwise than by the payment of money 
under the constitution and by-laws thereof, and no proxy given by virtue of this act, 
shall continue valid for more than one year from the time when the same was given. 

§ 3. This act shall take effect immediately. 

The following remonstrance against the bill is being circulated by an agent 
of the American Tract Society, and is said to have been signed “by a large 
number of our best citizens” :— 

A REMONSTRANCE 

Against the passage by the Legislature of Bill 291, entitled, “An Act to empower the 
members and stockholders of Benevolent , Charitable , Scientific and Missionary Corpora¬ 
tions and Societies to vote by proxy 

Of the effect of such a law upon scientific associations, your remonstrants will not 
affirm ; but against the passage of so much of this bill as relates to benevolent, chari¬ 
table, and missionary corporations and societies, your remonstrants urge :— 




4 


1. We are not aware that the constituency of these societies desire any such change. 

2. This hill introduces a new mode of conducting the business of such societies. We 
are not aware that any benevolent institution in our whole land allows members to vote 
by proxy. 

3. It is liable to great abuse. The business of such societies is conducted in open 
session, and settled by a vote of those who have heard the discussions. This bill would 
put it into the power of a few partisans to collect secretly a large number of voters, and 
overrule the intelligent votes of nine-tenths of those who had taken sufficient interest 

O 

to attend the meetings. 

4. As the whole business of the year in these societies is presented in an annual 
meeting in facts and statistics, it is impossible for those absent to know how to vote 
until the facts are presented, and of course they cannot intelligently transfer their votes 
to other parties. 

5. The argument drawn from the practice of commercial institutions is invalid, inas¬ 
much as the cases are not analogous. 


OPINIONS OF CERTAIN JOURNALS. 

The Journal of Commerce. 

“A cat in the meal bag. —A trap has been set at Albany to carry the American 
Tract Society by stratagem, seeing it cannot be taken by storm. Of course it would 
not answer to apply for a law for. this specific purpose, and so it is made general in its 
provisions. * * The reasons of the remonstrance are so conclusive, that we cannot 

believe it possible that either branch of the Legislature will give it their sanction.” 

The New York Observer. 

“It would enable the directors of the Bible or Tract Society to forestall action by secur¬ 
ing beforehand votes enough to re-elect themselves. By the aid of their armies of agents 
all over the land, they might secure votes to carry out any policy they might mark out 
for themselves. While we have the highest confidence in the men now in office, and do 
not believe that they have any agency in the proposed measure, we would not give to 
them this power, that maybe in other hands wielded injudiciously. At any rate, let us 
have time to look at the question on all sides before so important a step is rushed 
through the Legislature.” 

The New York Times. 

“ It looks very innocent, but means mischief.” 

The Christian Intelligencer. 

“ We can scarcely conceive it possible that our legislators at Albany would be impru¬ 
dent enough to interfere in such a manner with the chartered rights and privileges of 
our great Religious and Benevolent Societies.” 

The interest which has been aroused in the public mind in regard to the 
character and operation of the proposed law, by the strenuous efforts of the 
Tract Society by its agents and presses to defeat it, renders all apology 


5 


unnecessary for the publication of the speech of the Hon. Mr. Noodle 
against the threatened and dangerous innovation. 

Mr. Noodle, it may be proper to add, is an American cousin of the 
distinguished English Noodle, whose well-known “little oration” was report¬ 
ed by Sidney Smith. His speech on the Proxy question exhibits the 
same logical force, if not always the same eloquence as marked his celebrated 
kinsman; and he uses occasionally the very arguments, if not the words, of 
that eminent orator. Perhaps the last brilliant and effective paragraph in 
his peroration will be regarded as a plagiarism. It will be recognized, of 
course, as belonging to the gentlemen in New York who at intervals, and 
with plentiful parade of patriotism, have appointed themselves a committee 
to save the Union. It has been delivered, with slight variation, and in 
solemn tones, on several occasions by the professional Job Trotters, whom 
(until the trick was discovered) that clever dodge for Southern custom fre¬ 
quently brought before the public. But it is still possible that Noodle was 
the originator of this immortal passage, and that it was made to the order 
of some respectable firm, who, when the times demand it, can keep their 
orator as Lyon the roach-destroyer keeps his poet. 

Although Mr. Noodle’s argument may not perhaps prevent the passage 
of the bill, as one based upon broad principles of equal justice, it will 
doubtless convince the Legislature that the American Tract Society should 
be specially exempted from its operation, and its present managers protected 
from impertinent interference by the society at large. 

Wishing the managers and their excellent agent, all the success they 
deserve in their energetic efforts to defeat the bill, we commend the forcible 
arguments of the American Noodle to the attention of the Country. 




New York, April 1st, 1859. 


SPEECH OF 


THE HONORABLE MR. NOODLE 


IN BEHALF OF THE REMONSTRANTS AND AGAINST THE 

BILL. 


Mr. Chairman : 

My first objection to the bill, as stated by the Remonstrants, 
is, that “ they are not aware that the constituency of these socie¬ 
ties desire any such change.” How entirely satisfied are the con¬ 
stituency, for instance, of the Tract Society, whose managers are 
especially anxious to defeat the bill, with their conduct and 
policy during the past two years, may be seen in the perfect har¬ 
mony and unity of sentiment that pervade that body throughout 
the country. The country members especially, whom this bill 
would enable to vote at the anniversary meetings, are so charmed 
with the present arrangement, by which the Society is managed 
wholly in the city of New York, that they have no desire for any 
change that would enable them to exercise their will in the elec¬ 
tions or proceedings. This you will of course believe on the 
assurance of these intelligent remonstrants, who are among ‘ £ our 
best people ” in New York. 

My next objection is, that to allow voting by proxy in these 
associations, would be an innovation. What would our ancestors 
have said to this P Are we to put the wisdom of to-day, when 
our country is bounded by the Pacific and these societies extend 
from shore to shore, in competition with the wisdom of the last 



7 


century, when these societies had no existence P Is the Republi¬ 
can party, yet in its beardless youth, to show no respect for the 
decisions of its political progenitors ? If the measure is right, 
would it have escaped the wisdom of our Revolutionary states¬ 
men P would the Whigs and Democrats have passed it over ? 
would the Barn-burners and Hard-shells have let it slip ? would 
not the Soft-shells have picked it up ? would the Know- 
nothings have rejected it ? would such a notable discovery have 
been reserved for these modern and degenerate days ? Nor is this 
a proper time to introduce it. The measure implies a distrust of 
the present managers of these societies. The characters of these 
gentlemen are at stake. Is this House prepared to declare them 
unworthy of confidence ? Sir, give your sanction to this meas¬ 
ure, and what will the mover of the bill require next—what 
further partisan scheme is he planning to overthrow these ad¬ 
mirable associations ? 

Surprise has been expressed, and I may add indignation has 
been felt, in the city of New York, that the Committee on Re¬ 
ligious and Charitable Associations should have reported the bill 
favorably—and without dissent on the part of a single member of 
that Committee. 

What matters it that I am told that the bill was at first 
viewed doubtfully by that Committee, and that they approved it 
only after the most careful consideration and scrutiny, and after 
skilfully guarding it from abuse, by additional provisions incor¬ 
porated by themselves. What matters it to me that its passage 
is advocated not in reference to any particular society, but upon 
broad and general principles of equity and fair dealing, and with 
equal reference to all charitable, benevolent, scientific and mis¬ 
sionary associations—and that on these grounds alone it has been 
reported. Is that to deter me, or to deter the press, or these re¬ 
monstrants, or the managers of the Tract Society, from declaring 
it a sectional, partisan invention, fraught with mischief to those 
excellent managers, and therefore to be rejected by the Legisla¬ 
ture ? No, sir. We attach no weight to the approval of the 
Committee, who, I beg to remind the House, without meaning 
any disrespect to those venerable and respectable gentlemen, who 


8 


I know are not likely to lend any countenance to partisan legis¬ 
lation, that their usually sound judgments have probably been in¬ 
sensibly influenced by the fact that they are themselves from the 
rural districts, and therefore, perhaps, more prejudiced in favor of 
equal justice to the country members of these societies than are the 
managers at New York. 

Sir, this act would open the door to great abuse. No intelli¬ 
gent vote can be given in these societies by proxy. 

This is the great point on which we chiefly rely to defeat the 
bill. An intelligent vote cannot be given by a member who does 
not attend in person, and take part in the discussions, and hear 
the facts and statistics of the last year, which of course the 
managers would never print in advance for the advisement of the 
country members. Voting by proxy is a thing never heard of in 
any country—I except, of course, the British House of Lords, 
where every Peer may so vote in legislating for the kingdom, by 
intrusting his vote to another Peer, in whose views he coincides, 
and in whose judgment he has confidence ; because the British 
Parliament was organized in the darkness of past ages, and its 
usage can afford no example to the enlightened citizens of the model 
Republic. I except also the various cases where a vote by proxy 
is exercised in other than charitable corporations, for, as I shall 
presently show, there is no analogy between the two cases. But 
looking at it in a practical way, I wish to convince you that how¬ 
ever reasonable and practicable and proper it may be in the or¬ 
dinary concerns of life, for a man who has business to transact 
at a distance, where he cannot attend to it in person, to 
authorize an agent, an attorney or a proxy, call him what you 
will, to transact that business, by the aid of private or public in¬ 
structions, and of the intelligence of the attorney or proxy, it 
cannot and ought not to be done, in the case of the Bible and 
Tract and Missionary Societies. Look at the Bible Society. 
That body for years was agitated by the question, shall the es¬ 
tablished version of King James be revised and corrected P Sir, 
is it possible that a member residing at a distance from New York, 
after reading all that was published on both sides of that ques¬ 
tion, could give an intelligent vote by proxy, without advising 




9 


with the managers in person, and knowing what Wall street 
thought upon that subject ? Look at the Missionary Socie¬ 
ties, whose operations extend over half the globe. If a new 
mission is suggested,—to Siam for instance,—is there not the 
same difficulty ? May it not bear remotely upon the Union and 
the price of stocks ? or look at the Tract Society, and take a case 
now actually pending. 

At the last anniversary of that Society a Resolution was of¬ 
fered in these words : 

Resolved , That nothing published by this Society shall countenance 
the idea that the Scriptures sanction the lawfulness of the system of slavery. 

That resolution was laid upon the table, and may be taken 
up for future action. Now, sir, I ask this House, candidly, can 
a member of the Society residing at Boston, or at Cincinnati, or 
St. Louis, vote intelligently upon that question by proxy ? I say, 
no, sir, he cannot; and I will tell you why. It is because the 
great question involved in that resolution, and all the great 
questions of policy and principle that now agitate and divide and 
separate our charitable and religious bodies, upon the decision of 
which hang their policy and plan of operation, and upon which 
depends the direction of their large power and influence, cannot 
be at all appreciated or understood excepting in the city of New 
York, where these Associations from convenience and necessity 
have their head-quarters. That city, sir, is the commercial centre 
of the Union, and there alone can a member be made to feel that 
every election, every vote, must have a chief regard to the com¬ 
mercial interests of that metropolis and the perennial saving of 
this glorious Union that is forever being dissolved. The rural 
districts cannot understand this ; their views of duty and princi¬ 
ple seem to lie in another direction, and however large may be 
their aggregate number of country members, as compared with 
that of the few who reside in New York, are those country mem¬ 
bers, on this account, I ask it with emphasis, to be allowed to in¬ 
terfere with our chartered rights and privileges P Sir, are the 
gentlemen from the country to be permitted to dictate to our 
boards of managers ? Admit, if you please, that they have as¬ 
sisted to build up our religious societies, that they have contribu- 


10 


ted their time, their money, and their influence to create these 
mighty corporations, which have spread themselves over the coun¬ 
try and become powers in the land, can they not be content with 
the glory they have thus earned ? Is it reasonable for them to 
demand a voice in the management of those corporations ? Is it 
consistent with that modesty and deference which should 
characterize the dwellers in the rural districts, men that handle 
the goad and drive oxen, and whose talk is of bullocks ? Are 
they not enjoined by Holy Writ to refrain from sitting in the 
seat of judgment ? Are they to question the fidelity and the 
wisdom of those more fortunate members whose lives are spent 
in the purlieus of Wall street, and who, when duty calls, speak 
to the world from Tammany and Castle Garden ? Will this 
House, by giving to country members a vote by proxy, put them 
on a par with the citizen of Hew York P I hope not. I think, 
sir, you will hardly venture upon that step. Besides, sir, has 
the country member any right to complain as it is ? May he 
not vote now, if he chooses to attend the anniversary meetings, 
and may he not be present as certainly in the month of May, as 
if he lived on the Island of Manhattan ? Is not our continent 
threaded with lines of travel, with broad rivers, and railroads and 
telegraphs P Has it not an ocean shore, and scores of coasting 
vessels, so that he need never be at a loss for a conveyance ? If 
he resides at St. Louis, has he not the Mississippi, the Ohio, the 
Lakes and the Hudson ; or if at San Francisco, may he not come by 
Panama, or Nicaragua, or Tehuantepec, or more directly by the 
mail wagon through the Indian wilderness ? I may be told, indeed, 
of the time and expense necessary for this, but if he is so anxious to 
cast his vote in accordance with his own judgment, on any of the 
great questions that yearly agitate these societies, and are dis¬ 
cussed in newspapers and pamphlets and public meetings all over 
the country, ought he to shrink from the sacrifice—may he not 
satisfy himself with the reflection that the distance and the ex¬ 
pense are only his misfortune, and not his fault. It is true, that 
in the more important concerns of this life, in those corporations 
that concern money, and involve the “ almighty dollar/' the 
policy of the law is different. If our friend living at St. Louis, 
owns stock in a New York Bank or Insurance Company, he can 


11 


cast his vote by proxy at the expense of a three cent stamp ; but 
in these concerns of religious, benevolent and scientific societies, 
if he wishes to vote for a particular set of officers, or for a dis¬ 
tinctive course of policy, let him come in person. Why should 
the Legislature trouble itself about such trifling matters ? Be¬ 
sides, sir, think of the dignity and solemnity that attaches to the 
meetings of such associations as those to be affected by this bill, 
dealing as they do in great moral questions, in the diffusion of 
religious and scientific truth, and bearing upon the happiness and 
welfare of mankind at large. Are you ready to degrade these 
noble societies, by placing them on a level with Banks and In¬ 
surance Companies, and all the various corporations where voting 
by proxy is allowed ? Is the Bible Society, or the Tract Society, 
to be assimilated to a Board of Brokers ? Again, sir, I say, no ; 
and I repeat it, no. 

Sir, there can be no argument in favor of this bill from the 
practice of moneyed institutions, for the cases are not analogous. 

In the case of Banks and Insurance and Railroad corporations, 
where dividends of money are paid or expected to be paid, it is 
right that the holder for ever so short a time of a hundred or a 
thousand shares, should have a vote by proxy for every share wher¬ 
ever he may be, for his soul will be in the work and he will do 
what is right and proper. 

But in Benevolent and Religious Societies, where the sole ob¬ 
ject is to do good, where no member ; has a vote unless he is a 
member for life, and where no member has more than one vote 
however deep his devotion, or however large his contributions to 
the cause, what dangers may we not anticipate if he is allowed a 
vote by_proxy? what great abuses, what fearful corruptions, what 
secret combinations and treasons will not be resorted to by such 
motives ? I will not enlarge upon the painful prospect. 

I may be reminded by my opponents that in the Bible and 
Tract Society there is also a moneyed capital to be cared for, and 
investments to be made, and salaried agents to be appointed, and 
enormous funds to be disbursed. Sir, I know the fact, and I rely 
upon it as the strongest argument against the bill. Look at the 
treasury of these institutions, annually increased by legacies, 


12 


devises and bequests—look at their vast manufacturing establish¬ 
ments in the city, and their “ army of agents ”—I quote the words 
of one of their journals “ scattered through the land/' Are the 
members of the rural districts capable of rightly appreciating and 
guiding such wealth and such machinery? It is one thing to 
vote by proxy for the officers of a petty Bank or Insurance Com¬ 
pany, but when societies are in question whose mere in¬ 
come is counted by hundreds of thousands, country gentlemen had 
better forego their right, and trust to the more skilful manage- 
mant of metropolitan members and financiers of Wall street. 

I would not indulge in unmerited eulogy of the present man¬ 
agers of these institutions, whose modest merit shrinks from the 
scrutinizing gaze to which year by year this bill will subject them, 
but I cannot forbear to remark, that if any proof were required of 
the keen vigilance of the New York managers and their friends, 
to guard the management from being interfered with by the So¬ 
ciety at large—if any evidence were wanting of their disinter¬ 
ested attachment to the onerous duties of their office in wielding 
the power and disbursing the funds of these societies, you may 
find it in the ec remonstrance signed by a large number of our best 
citizens,” and the activity of their agents in sounding the 
alarm through the public press. The Journal of Commerce, 
that high-minded expounder of commercial Christianity, announ¬ 
ces that there is “ a cat in the meal bag.” They frankly ac¬ 
knowledge their craft is in danger from this ee mischievous bill” 
granting to the society a vote by proxy. “ It looks very innocent, 
they say, but it means mischief,” and they promptly exert them¬ 
selves to demand protection from the mischief which they justly 
fear will be done them, if the bill shall empower the Society at 
large to exercise the power now monopolized by the city of New 
York. This bill would summon the managers year by year to 
the bar of the Society in its national capacity. To that bar they 
do not wish to be brought. They prefer a select jury of the vi¬ 
cinage, whom they may select and summon at a moment's warning, 
and whose verdict they feel assured will never do them mischief. 

Sir, I would say to the rural districts and to the country 
at large, that these managers know their own business, and want 


13 


no outside interference. Let the country understand that this 
bill would work a revolution, that if it passes the management 
will be governed no longer by the city members, but by the Soci¬ 
ety at large. That the country members and the city members 
would stand on an equal footing, and have an equal vote. Sir, I 
ask again, is the country prepared to assume this responsibility? 
Will the rural districts pretend to understand the great religious, 
and I may say the great national questions, to some of which I 
nave alluded, that have arisen in these bodies ? I would not be 
disrespectful to country gentlemen ; but, sir, they cannot under¬ 
stand them—they will be imposed upon. The managers of these 
societies, as the Christian Intelligencer has declared, will take 
advantage of their position, and in an underhand way. I do not 
speak, sir, of the present managers, who are all model men, and 
would never countenance nor permit proxies to be collected by 
their friends to elect them to office or to sustain their policy, and 
in whom I assure the country members they may repose the very 
completest and most inexhaustible confidence ; but some future 
managers, such as will be elected when the vote is cast by the So¬ 
ciety at large, and not by the Hew Yorkers, will deceive the ru¬ 
ral districts and humbug the country members, and procure 
proxies for the most improper purposes. Sir, I call upon you to 
protect these societies, to protect the country members, from be¬ 
ing thus imposed upon. Save them from the sad consequences 
of allowing them their rights as members. Save them from the 
danger of being permitted to reflect, and determine, and act for 
themselves ! 

Sir, it will be said, and I feel that the argument under other 
circumstances might have great weight, that this bill, in the case 
of the societies that are now national in name but local in their 
character and management, will make them national in fact as 
well as in name, will give to every life member throughout our 
Union, far and near, the same direct personal interest in them, 
as is now felt by the managing majority in the city of New York, 
and that this step will give to them new life, and pour into their 
treasury gifts from that class of our citizens who, from their pres- 


14 


ent exclusion, are averse to giving money where they cannot con¬ 
trol or influence its destination. 

Sir, I conceive that argument should have no weight here, for 
the reason that some of the national societies having their head¬ 
quarters in New York, have so judiciously invested in real estate, 
in substantial and profitable edifices, and in stereotype plates, 
presses, and machinery, the large sums they have received 
by subscription, donation, and bequest, that they are, or will soon 
be self-supporting institutions, with a sufficiently large income 
from rent, investments, and sales of publications, to dispense with 
outside assistance and to defy outside interference. The mana¬ 
gers, in anticipation of this early independence, have regarded all 
opposition from the country members as the idle wind, when sud¬ 
denly this ill-omened and mischievous bill has appeared to give 
force and efficacy and power to the country life-memberships which 
have been hitherto a mere name. You cannot fail, I think, to see, 
sir, that the rights of country members having had practically no ex¬ 
istence, or if they ever had any reality, having lapsed by non-user, 
for thousands of the country members have never voted in their 
lives, it would be a great infringement of the rights of the New 
York members, who have always voted when called upon by the 
managers to vote, leaving their counting-rooms and wasting the 
best part of a business day for the performance of this conserva¬ 
tive duty—it would, I say, be a great infringement on their rights 
to allow these country members to vote by proxy. Looking at it 
in this light, as I trust you will, and regarding the New York 
members as in fact constituting these societies, as they now vir¬ 
tually do—the only privilege of the country members being to 
contribute money for the New York managers to expend—you 
will see clearly that to endue the country members with the privi¬ 
lege of voting by proxy—for in the nature of things that is the 
only way in which they can vote—you will see and say that this 
would, as the Christian Intelligencer logically remarks, “ interfere 
with the rights and privileges of our great religious and benevo¬ 
lent societies/' 

So plain is it that by enfranchising the members you would take 
away their rights, and that if you would preserve intact their char- 


15 


tered privileges, you must allow them no privileges at all. I fear 
this may seem paradoxical: but it will no longer he so, when you 
remember that the word “ Society ” sometimes indicates the mem¬ 
bers at large, and sometimes the board of management; and 
then the paradox is a paradox no longer. The proposition of the 
“ Intelligencer ” is simply this : Give “the Society,” that is, the 
mass of the members, the right to vote, and the rights and priv¬ 
ileges of “ the Society,” that is, the present board of managers, 
are gone forever. 

Such an interference would be unconstitutional. If you perpe¬ 
trate it, the Supreme Court of the United States, (for to that pure 
tribunal, alike untainted and unsuspected, the managers will, of 
course, go for protection,) will so declare it. The principle 
laid down by the venerable Chief Justice of that Court, in regard 
to niggers, that black men have no rights that white men are 
bound to regard, is directly in point, and exactly indicates the 
claim which life-members residing in the country, have upon 
managers living in Hew York. 

This bill, sir, I admit, looks well in theory ; but it won't do 
in practice. Those who believe in the virtue and intelligence of 
the rural districts, may vote for it. I rely with confidence on 
that high-toned purity which marks the population of the Em¬ 
pire City, the proud capital of the Empire State ; and should 
you give a vote by proxy to country members, you may rely upon 
it they will be bamboozled, and hoodwinked, and led by the nose, 
by the designing managers of the metropolis. 

If, notwithstanding all my arguments to the contrary, this 
House shall still think this bill to be based upon a broad, uni¬ 
versal principle of right, in harmony with our institutions, and 
in consonance with the character of our Union ; that it prop¬ 
erly disregards sectional divisions and geographical boundaries, 
and places the Horth, the South, the East, and the West upon 
the same foooting of fair representation and equal influence ; if 
they shall overlook the rustic and unformed intelligence of the 
rural classes, and hold that our system of universal education, a 
free press, and constant intercourse, will enable the country mem¬ 
bers to vote by proxy and vote intelligently ; and that, if any 


16 


error should be made by them, the proxy being limited to one 
year, it may be safely corrected the next ; and if this House are 
prepared to ingraft this bill upon our legislation, as one demanded 
by our enlarged boundaries, and by the increasing intelligence and 
activity of the age, let me appeal to them not to adopt it under 
existing circumstances. 

However broad and catholic the principle, it is suspected of 
emanating from gentlemen who believe the right it confers will 
be exercised by members of the Bible and Tract Societies, and 
exercised in opposition to the present mangement of those bodies. 
That alone is a sufficient objection to me. Again, sir, the bill 
was reported to this House by a distinguished leader of the 
Republican party, and one, too, hailing from that great city 
whose local influence in these Societies this bill will so much 
impair. I do not like the party with which that honorable gen¬ 
tleman acts. However pure may be his motives, they cannot but 
suffer contamination from those with whom he is politically asso¬ 
ciated. This bill may be a boon to the Constitution and the 
country, but I wish no favor to my countrymen from such hands. 

If the House, still unconvinced, are decided to pass the bill, 
I ask but one thing on behalf of the managers of these associa¬ 
tions, who are before you with their agents, their prayers, and 
their protests : Delay your action ; do not expose them sud¬ 
denly to be taken by storm by the mass of life members, who live 
beyond their own neighborhood. Give them time for prepara¬ 
tion before their measures and names are presented for approval: 
until, by the aid of their army of agents, they can consult with 
their distant friends, and gather proxies for the next anniver¬ 
sary. 

By this delay, too, you may enable them to organize such an 
opposition to the measure, in the next Legislative session, that, 
what with clever management, it may, perhaps, occur that the 
life members of these Societies in the rural districts may remain 
voiceless and voteless at the city anniversaries, for half a century 
to come. 

In conclusion, I beseech the House to pause and consider the 
precipice on which they stand. What are the rights of country 


\ 


11 


’members—what are truth, and justice, and all the blessings that 
belong to freemen—compared with the preservation of this glori¬ 
ous Union ? Pass this bill, and that Union may be shivered 
into atoms ! A fearful threat was made at the last anniversary 
of the Tract Society by a reverend brother from the South, that 
made the commercial gentlemen tremble and quake. Be wise in 
time. Listen to the remonstrants ; and if you will pass the 
bill, except the Tract Society from its operation. That will pa¬ 
cify the rising wrath of our sensitive and impulsive countrymen, 
by whose favor alone our nation exists, and whose gracious 
approval you should ever seek. Then gentlemen may sleep in 
peace, hopeful that they have escaped the fate that inevitably 
awaits the country if this bill shall pass. 

Never, sir, was the republic in such fearful danger. All the 
crises of the past are now concentrated into one. I shrink 
from a contemplation of the future. I forbear to harrow up your 
souls with the gloomy view that I behold. I will only quietly 
remark, that, if you give a vote by proxy to the country members 
of the Tract Society, this glorious Union, the pride of the Uni¬ 
verse, will be immediately shattered into fragments, while the 
terrified sun in the heavens, with his blood-stained eye, shall 
gaze in horror upon each separate particle saturated with frater¬ 
nal gore ! * 

* This speech has called forth a new Remonstrance against the bill, much 
more full and logical than the one already quoted, and which will be found in 
the Appendix on the next page. 


2 


APPENDIX. 


- 0 - 

ANOTHER REMONSTRANCE 

Against the bill is proposed. The grounds on which the Leg¬ 
islature are asked to defeat it have been already touched upon in 
Mr. Noodle’s speech. They are ten in number, and are as fol¬ 
lows :— 

1. If the country life members wish to vote they can come to 
town. They don’t come : therefore they don’t wish to vote. 

2. They never have voted by proxy : therefore, they never 
should vote by proxy. 

3. Country members cannot vote intelligently on the great 
questions that agitate the societies, because they do not know 
how those questions are regarded in Wall street, and how they 
will bear upon the saving of the Union and the price of stocks. 

4. Country members cannot vote intelligently on any ques¬ 
tions, or at any election, for the reason that the managers will 
take advantage of them, and, by their army of agents, will carry 
out any policy they may think expedient. 

5. There is no analogy between these Societies and commercial 
institutions, for those concern money, and these are solely for 
doing good, and have nothing to do with money. 

6. The enormous capital and increasing income of the Bible 
and Tract Societies are altogether beyond the comprehension of 
country members, and can only be appreciated by New Yorkers, 





19 


who require no assistance in disbursing the funds, and arranging 
the salaries. 

7. If the Society (meaning the members of the Society,) 
are allowed to vote, the rights and privileges of the Society 
(meaning the New York managers) are destroyed forever. 

8. To interfere with those chartered rights and privileges 
would he unconstitutional, as shown by the Dred Scott decision, 
and the managers will appeal to Chief Justice Taney. 

9. If the bill is passed, the Tract Society should he excepted, 
because the country members of that Society are so peculiarly 
well satisfied with the management in New York. 

10. Give to the rural districts a vote by proxy, and our 
Southern brethren will dissolve the Union, 



' 

■ 

* 
















































» 





























-I 






•r 







